Mr Desmond O'Malley has denied altering or directing anyone else to alter a key statement in the Arms Trial during his time as minister for justice.
In an interview broadcast on RTE television last night, Mr O'Malley was asked about reports that a statement given to the Garda by the then director of military intelligence, Col Michael Hefferon, was altered at the Department of Justice before its inclusion in the book of evidence for the trial in 1970.
Col Hefferon's original statement said the then minister for defence, Mr Jim Gibbons, was aware of a plan to import arms for distribution among nationalists in the North.
The original statement was recently discovered in the National Archives by Capt James Kelly, a former intelligence officer, who was among a number of men acquitted of conspiring to import arms.
It was revealed in The Irish Times that Mr O'Malley claimed privilege over file number S/7/70 - which included Col Hefferon's original statement - and directed that its contents not be disclosed or admitted as evidence in the trial.
In last night's interview, Mr O'Malley was asked: "Was Col Hefferon's statement altered in the Department of Justice with your knowledge or consent?"
Mr O'Malley answered that "it was not".
He said: "I've said already that I have no recollection of seeing that statement. That doesn't mean to say that I didn't see it. It's quite possible that I did, because this was a pretty unusual situation that the country was in at the time. I think that this statement could well have been sent to Mr [Peter] Berry and that, in the circumstances of this situation, would have been normal."
Mr Berry was then secretary of the Department of Justice.
"He could well have shown it to me," said Mr O'Malley. "But it didn't impinge on me at the time. And I certainly didn't alter it or ask anybody else to alter it."
The only way that he could have known whether it had been altered, he added, would be if he had compared it with the book of evidence. "I didn't do that."
On the alterations, which excluded 16 references to Mr Gibbons having knowledge of the plans to import arms, Mr O'Malley said these would have been "bits that were inadmissible in evidence . . . because they related to opinions.
"Or they related to details of conversations that did not take place in the presence of any of the accused and as a result would not be admissible in evidence against any of the accused." He said he had been advised by senior counsel that this was the case.
Mr O'Malley was asked about reports that he issued a claim of privilege over file S/7/70, directing that it be neither admitted in evidence nor disclosed to defence counsel. Rejecting this, he said he did not prevent defence counsel "or anyone else" seeing it.
"The chief State solicitor made it clear in a letter to the chief superintendent in charge of the case that all the original statements were to be available in court . . . That happened to the best of my knowledge and if any point had arisen in regard to a statement, then anybody in court was free to ask for it."
He went on to say that "so far as could see" file S/7/70, which was released by the National Archives under the 30year rule, was not the same file which existed at the end of 1970.
"It's now a very voluminous file. The difficulty is that when I signed it, to identify it, there was no list of contents. The result is that it is really impossible to tell what was in it in 1970, because some of the things that are now in it are, for example, the exhibits at the trial. Now, how could I have claimed privilege over the exhibits because they were being handed in as evidence? And they were handed in."
He also said there were legal opinions he got from the prosecuting counsel at the time on the question of privilege. "Why should I claim privilege on my own claims of privilege?"
He said there could never have been any question of a government plan to import arms. "If there was any proposal or any intention of supplying arms to people in the North, arms could have been imported for that purpose. They weren't and the fact that it was done surreptitiously and that great efforts were made to cover up what was going on was, to my mind, proof of the fact that it certainly wasn't government policy."
